Effects of aftershocks on peak ductility demand due to strong ground motion records from shallow crustal earthquakes

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 41, Issue 15, 2012, Pages 2311-2330

  Goda, Katsuichiro ^a   Taylor, Colin A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Artificial mainshock aftershock sequence; Generalized Omori's law; Peak ductility demand; Real mainshock aftershock sequence

Indexed keywords

DUCTILITY;

ARTIFICIAL MAINSHOCK-AFTERSHOCK SEQUENCE; CRUSTAL EARTHQUAKES; DATA SETS; DUCTILITY DEMANDS; MAINSHOCK; NON-LINEAR DAMAGES; OMORI'S LAW; PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCHES; REAL MAINSHOCK-AFTERSHOCK SEQUENCE; SELECTION PROCEDURES; SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM SYSTEMS; STRONG GROUND MOTION; TIME-SERIES DATA;

EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS;

AFTERSHOCK; BUILDING; CRUSTAL STRUCTURE; DUCTILITY; EARTHQUAKE MECHANISM; GROUND MOTION; STRONG MOTION; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE; TIME SERIES ANALYSIS;

EID: 84868159447     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2188     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Utsu T, Ogata Y, Matsuura RS. The centenary of the Omori formula for a decay law of aftershock activity. Journal of Physics of the Earth 1995; 43(1):1-33.
2. Reasenberg PA, Jones LM. Earthquake hazard after a main shock in California. Science 1989; 243(4895):1173-1176.
3. Reasenberg PA, Jones LM. Earthquake aftershocks - update. Science 1994; 265(5176):1251-1252.
4. Guo Z, Ogata Y. Statistical relations between the parameters of aftershocks in time, space, and magnitude. Journal of Geophysical Research 1997; 102(B2):2857-2873.
5. Shcherbakov R, Turcotte DL, Rundle JB. Aftershock statistics. Pure and Applied Geophysics 2005; 162(6-7):1051-1076.
6. Nanjo KZ, Enescu B, Shcherbakov R, Turcotte DL, Iwata T, Ogata Y. Decay of aftershock activity for Japanese earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research 2007; 112(B08309). DOI: 10.1029/2006JB004754.
7. Gerstenberger MC, Wiemer S, Jones LM, Reasenberg PA. Real-time forecasts of tomorrow's earthquakes in California. Nature 2005; 435: 328-331.
8. Yeo GL, Cornell CA. A probabilistic framework for quantification of aftershock ground-motion hazard in California: methodology and parametric study. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2009; 38(1):45-60.
9. McGuire RK. Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute: Oakland, CA, 2004.
10. Goulet CA, Haselton CB, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL, Deierlein GG, Porter KA, Stewart JP. Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building - from seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13):1973-1997.
11. Ruiz-Garcia J, Miranda E. Probabilistic estimation of maximum inelastic displacement demands for performance-based design. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(9):1235-1254.
12. Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Engineering Structures 2009; 31(11):2744-2755.
13. Ruiz-Garcia J, Negrete-Manriquez JC. Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel frames under as-recorded far-field and near-filed mainshock-aftershock seismic sequences. Engineering Structures 2011; 33(2):621-634.
14. Luco N, Bazzurro P, Cornell CA. Dynamic versus static computation of the residual capacity of a mainshock-damaged building to withstand an aftershock. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, Paper 2405, 2004.
15. Li Q, Ellingwood BR. Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel frame buildings under mainshock-aftershock earthquake sequence. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(3):405-427.
16. Wen YK. Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division 1976; 102(2):249-263.
17. Foliente GC. Hysteresis modeling of wood joints and structural systems. Journal of Structural Engineering 1995; 121(6):1013-1022.
18. Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering (4th edn). Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2011.
19. Ruiz-Garcia J, Miranda E. Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of existing structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2003; 32(8):1237-1258.
20. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. FEMA: Washington, DC, 2005.
21. Goda K, Hong HP, Lee CS. Probabilistic characteristics of seismic ductility demand of SDOF systems with Bouc-Wen hysteretic behavior. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2009; 13(5):600-622.
22. Gutenberg B, Richter CF. Seismicity of the Earth and Associated Phenomena. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1954.
23. Bath M. Lateral inhomogeneities in the upper mantle. Tectonophysics 1965; 2(6):483-514.
24. Kanno T, Narita A, Morikawa N, Fujiwara H, Fukushima Y. A new attenuation relation for strong ground motion in Japan based on recorded data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2006; 96(3):879-897.
25. Luco N, Bazzurro P. Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in biased nonlinear structural drift responses? Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13):1813-1835.
26. Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE. Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North America. Seismological Research Letters 1997; 68(1):128-153.
27. Kagan YY. Aftershock zone scaling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2002; 92(2):641-655.